Re: I will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs

[Willy West]

You sound like Ted Kennedy boozed up trying to get Mary Jo Kopechne across
the Chappaquiddick bridge.
http://www.ytedk.com/ Natural Selection is Natures way of eliminating
the losers, and looks like you are next.


"Patrick Goetz" > wrote in message
...
> Re: venting by: Patrick Goetz 07:38 PDT
>
>
> >On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Mike Dahmus wrote:
> >You started out fine, but right here you lost me, since from experience
> >in the past, I know that both you and MBJ occasionally run stop signs and
> >lights for no reason other than convenience. There is no safety benefit
> >here; only a convenience benefit (for you); and as I've pointed out, if
> >everybody did the same thing, you'd be dead long ago, since not everybody
> >has the skills to always know when it's safe to ignore the big red sign
> >or big red light.
>
> That is correct. If there is no traffic in the perpendicular right of
> way, then I will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs.
> Please explain to me how this is a safety problem.
>
> For political reasons (i.e. in order not to give motorists an excuse to
> hate bicyclists), if there are cars waiting behind me or opposite me I
> usually don't run red lights even when there is no traffic, despite the
> fact that this really inconveniences them by not having me out of their
> way long before the light turns green. This is what I call "willful
> stupidity" brought about by the fact that other people can't quite grok,
> perhaps due to poor blood circulation to the brain as a result of lack of
> exercise.
>
> Trust me, most motorists would jump at the chance to treat stop signs and
> red lights as optional. And trust me again: as a bicyclist, you don't
> want to live in a world where they _do_.
>
>
> Mike, this might come as a big shock to you, but *I* *don't* *care* if a
> motorist runs a red light or stop sign when I'm not there to be hit. To
> be more specific, I am perfectly comfortable with motorists treating red
> lights and stop signs as yield signs; in fact, if all motorists drove the
> way I bike, biking in Austin WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW. It's all
> about paying attention to what you are doing, trying to anticipate what
> other road users are going to do, and MINDFULLY trying to prevent
> accidents.
>
> Traffic laws which create the illusion that one can tool around without
> paying much attention to the matter at hand ARE A SAFETY PROBLEM. We'd be
> a lot better off if everyone had to pay careful attention to the road
> because they have no idea what might happen. For example and in point of
> fact, traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety and
> everything to do with allowing cars to drive faster than they would
> otherwise be able to do in a situation where there might be contention for
> right of way. Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
> happen, as we all know from either personal experience or reading the
> paper. Ditto for 4-way stops, although these are considerably less likely
> to result in fatalities than traffic lights. Did anyone else notice that
> Deborah Prokoff got killed at 44th and Ave G. AFTER THEY ADDED THE
> "TRAFFIC CALMING" 4-WAY STOP SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION?
>
> This is a perfect example of just how stupid mindlessly following rules
> actually is. An intersection with absolutely no right of way indications
> (but with a huge sign indicating this) is probably much safer than ANY
> alternative (save for something like a roundabout or traffic circle).
> Why? Because everyone has to pay attention to what they are doing and
> even though someone might space out or be drunk or ignore the sign, you
> can bet that in almost all cases, at least one of 2 contending parties is
> doing just that. Accident prevention. Before, users of the 44th and Ave.
> G intersection had to be more careful, since one side clearly had the
> right of way. Adding a 4-way stop was almost certainly directly
> responsible for the death of a bicyclist.
>
> This is why I'm firmly convinced that Fred Meredith, John Forrester, and
> all the other "effective cycling" advocates are actually secretly OPPOSED
> to increasing the number of bicyclists on the road. Their half-baked
> preaching is directly responsible for increasing the number of bicycling
> fatalities (lots of examples right here in Austin - Ben Clough, Deborah
> Prokoff, etc. - check MBJ's web page). The more bicycle fatalities there
> are, the more people are afraid to ride bikes because it's not safe. The
> result: fewer bicyclists on the road. This is what these losers want:
> They want to feel special, and every additional commuter bicyclist makes
> them less so, so best to try to reduce the numbers of those pesky hangers
> on (like me, for example), who ride bikes around without making a big deal
> out of it. One way to do this is feeding them nonsense (always mindlessly
> follow traffic rules being the primary example) which is GOING TO GET THEM
> KILLED.
>
> Pardon me if I don't have any respect for this attitude, in part because
> it directly and negatively affects my own safety. The fact that honest
> bicyclists get killed by listening to these idiots is kind of sad, but
> it's also part of that evolutionary march towards better genes, hence
> can't really be avoided. They should have been reading MBJ's bicycle
> safety tips instead - they'd probably still be alive right now. And THAT
> is the true irony of this whole ridiculous thread.
>
>
>
>

[Grumpy au Contraire]

Patrick Goetz wrote:
>
> Re: venting by: Patrick Goetz 07:38 PDT
>
> >On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Mike Dahmus wrote:
> >You started out fine, but right here you lost me, since from experience
> >in the past, I know that both you and MBJ occasionally run stop signs and
> >lights for no reason other than convenience. There is no safety benefit
> >here; only a convenience benefit (for you); and as I've pointed out, if
> >everybody did the same thing, you'd be dead long ago, since not everybody
> >has the skills to always know when it's safe to ignore the big red sign
> >or big red light.
>
> That is correct. If there is no traffic in the perpendicular right of
> way, then I will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs.
> Please explain to me how this is a safety problem.
>


For starters, it's illegal.



Rest of idiotic post snipped




--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4

[gort]

I think you have your faggot biking shorts on too tight and it is
restricting blood flow to your brain.

I for one will obey the green light and remove you from the gene pool you
loser. I will be the one in air conditioned comfort in my SUV enjoying
the second hand smoke of a wonderful cigar.

../4 more years.

[Tom_Servo]

"Patrick Goetz" > wrote in message
...
> Re: venting by: Patrick Goetz 07:38 PDT
>
>
> >On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Mike Dahmus wrote:
> >You started out fine, but right here you lost me, since from experience
> >in the past, I know that both you and MBJ occasionally run stop signs and
> >lights for no reason other than convenience. There is no safety benefit
> >here; only a convenience benefit (for you); and as I've pointed out, if
> >everybody did the same thing, you'd be dead long ago, since not everybody
> >has the skills to always know when it's safe to ignore the big red sign
> >or big red light.
>
> That is correct. If there is no traffic in the perpendicular right of
> way, then I will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs.
> Please explain to me how this is a safety problem.

OK, you will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs, but won't
Cars will hit you and run you over?

>
> For political reasons (i.e. in order not to give motorists an excuse to
> hate bicyclists), if there are cars waiting behind me or opposite me I
> usually don't run red lights even when there is no traffic, despite the
> fact that this really inconveniences them by not having me out of their
> way long before the light turns green. This is what I call "willful
> stupidity" brought about by the fact that other people can't quite grok,
> perhaps due to poor blood circulation to the brain as a result of lack of
> exercise.

So, you usally run red lights.

>
> Trust me, most motorists would jump at the chance to treat stop signs and
> red lights as optional. And trust me again: as a bicyclist, you don't
> want to live in a world where they _do_.
>
>
> Mike, this might come as a big shock to you, but *I* *don't* *care* if a
> motorist runs a red light or stop sign when I'm not there to be hit. To
> be more specific, I am perfectly comfortable with motorists treating red
> lights and stop signs as yield signs; in fact, if all motorists drove the
> way I bike, biking in Austin WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW. It's all
> about paying attention to what you are doing, trying to anticipate what
> other road users are going to do, and MINDFULLY trying to prevent
> accidents.

So, if every bicycle rider ran stopsigns and red lights as you say, Austin
WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW.

>
> Traffic laws which create the illusion that one can tool around without
> paying much attention to the matter at hand ARE A SAFETY PROBLEM. We'd be
> a lot better off if everyone had to pay careful attention to the road
> because they have no idea what might happen. For example and in point of
> fact, traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety and

OK, you say "traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety"

> everything to do with allowing cars to drive faster than they would
> otherwise be able to do in a situation where there might be contention for
> right of way. Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
> happen,

OK, you say "Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
happen,"

as we all know from either personal experience or reading the
> paper. Ditto for 4-way stops, although these are considerably less likely
> to result in fatalities than traffic lights.

OK, you say "... 4-way stops,ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
happen"

>Did anyone else notice that
> Deborah Prokoff got killed at 44th and Ave G. AFTER THEY ADDED THE
> "TRAFFIC CALMING" 4-WAY STOP SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION?

She died following your example, ****head.


>
> This is a perfect example of just how stupid mindlessly following rules
> actually is. An intersection with absolutely no right of way indications
> (but with a huge sign indicating this) is probably much safer than ANY
> alternative (save for something like a roundabout or traffic circle).
> Why? Because everyone has to pay attention to what they are doing and
> even though someone might space out or be drunk or ignore the sign, you
> can bet that in almost all cases, at least one of 2 contending parties is
> doing just that. Accident prevention. Before, users of the 44th and Ave.
> G intersection had to be more careful, since one side clearly had the
> right of way. Adding a 4-way stop was almost certainly directly
> responsible for the death of a bicyclist.

OK, you say death is caused by stop signs.

>
> This is why I'm firmly convinced that Fred Meredith, John Forrester, and
> all the other "effective cycling" advocates are actually secretly OPPOSED
> to increasing the number of bicyclists on the road. Their half-baked
> preaching is directly responsible for increasing the number of bicycling
> fatalities

So, Fred Meredith, John Forrester, and all the other "effective cycling"
advocates are responsible for the Death of Ben Clough, Deborah Prokoff, and
others. Seems like YOU are responsible, and cannot accept what you have
caused.

(lots of examples right here in Austin - Ben Clough, Deborah
> Prokoff, etc. - check MBJ's web page). The more bicycle fatalities there
> are, the more people are afraid to ride bikes because it's not safe.

But, How can running stopsigns and red lights as you say to do, be safer?

>The result: fewer bicyclists on the road. This is what these losers want:
> They want to feel special, and every additional commuter bicyclist makes
> them less so, so best to try to reduce the numbers of those pesky hangers
> on (like me, for example), who ride bikes around without making a big deal
> out of it. One way to do this is feeding them nonsense (always mindlessly
> follow traffic rules being the primary example) which is GOING TO GET THEM
> KILLED.
>

Do you have these feelings of paranoia often?


> Pardon me if I don't have any respect for this attitude, in part because
> it directly and negatively affects my own safety. The fact that honest
> bicyclists get killed by listening to these idiots is kind of sad,

So, it is better for us to listen to you and run stopsigns, and red lights.

>but it's also part of that evolutionary march towards better genes, hence
> can't really be avoided.

OK, are you saying that you don't care about others that get whacked, its
just the natural selection thing?

>They should have been reading MBJ's bicycle
> safety tips instead - they'd probably still be alive right now. And THAT
> is the true irony of this whole ridiculous thread.

So "MBJ" says run stopsigns and redlights, and agrees with you?

######## In Summery Folks!! ########################
OK, you will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs, but won't
Cars will hit you and run you over?
So, you usually run red lights.
So, if every bicycle rider ran stopsigns and red lights as you say, Austin
WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW.
OK, you say "traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety"
OK, you say "Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
happen,"
OK, you say "... 4-way stops,ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
happen"
She died following your example, ****head.
OK, you say death is caused by stop signs.
So, you are responsible for the death of Ben Clough, Deborah Prokoff, and
cannot accept what you have caused.
But, How can running stopsigns and red lights as you say to do, be safer?
Do you have these feelings of paranoia often?
So, it is better for us to listen to you and run stopsigns, and red lights.
OK, are you saying that you don't care about others that get whacked, its
just the natural selection thing?
So "MBJ" says run stopsigns and redlights, and agrees with you?

This guy is definitely out to lunch, and working for the City of Austin!??

another post says he is :

Patrick Goetz
City of Austin Urban Transportation Committee Member

[Truth dude]

"MBJ" must be "Micheal Blue Jay" former Critical Ass in Austin. And Patric
Goetz is now Leader of Critical Ass in Austin, figures. Two adolescent
"**** you" joyriders. Guess your tight with "Tym" (thats such a cutesie doo
name, joy!)
Too much riding in the sun has cooked their noodles, now rabid, insane
logic.

****ing morons - The worst thing that could happen to bicycling safety.

Seriously, you need to get out, get off this scene before you cause the
deaths of even more innocent trusting people.



"Tom_Servo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Patrick Goetz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Re: venting by: Patrick Goetz 07:38 PDT
> >
> >
> > >On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Mike Dahmus wrote:
> > >You started out fine, but right here you lost me, since from experience
> > >in the past, I know that both you and MBJ occasionally run stop signs
and
> > >lights for no reason other than convenience. There is no safety benefit
> > >here; only a convenience benefit (for you); and as I've pointed out, if
> > >everybody did the same thing, you'd be dead long ago, since not
everybody
> > >has the skills to always know when it's safe to ignore the big red sign
> > >or big red light.
> >
> > That is correct. If there is no traffic in the perpendicular right of
> > way, then I will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs.
> > Please explain to me how this is a safety problem.
>
> OK, you will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs, but won't
> Cars will hit you and run you over?
>
> >
> > For political reasons (i.e. in order not to give motorists an excuse to
> > hate bicyclists), if there are cars waiting behind me or opposite me I
> > usually don't run red lights even when there is no traffic, despite the
> > fact that this really inconveniences them by not having me out of their
> > way long before the light turns green. This is what I call "willful
> > stupidity" brought about by the fact that other people can't quite grok,
> > perhaps due to poor blood circulation to the brain as a result of lack
of
> > exercise.
>
> So, you usally run red lights.
>
> >
> > Trust me, most motorists would jump at the chance to treat stop signs
and
> > red lights as optional. And trust me again: as a bicyclist, you don't
> > want to live in a world where they _do_.
> >
> >
> > Mike, this might come as a big shock to you, but *I* *don't* *care* if a
> > motorist runs a red light or stop sign when I'm not there to be hit. To
> > be more specific, I am perfectly comfortable with motorists treating red
> > lights and stop signs as yield signs; in fact, if all motorists drove
the
> > way I bike, biking in Austin WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW. It's
all
> > about paying attention to what you are doing, trying to anticipate what
> > other road users are going to do, and MINDFULLY trying to prevent
> > accidents.
>
> So, if every bicycle rider ran stopsigns and red lights as you say, Austin
> WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW.
>
> >
> > Traffic laws which create the illusion that one can tool around without
> > paying much attention to the matter at hand ARE A SAFETY PROBLEM. We'd
be
> > a lot better off if everyone had to pay careful attention to the road
> > because they have no idea what might happen. For example and in point of
> > fact, traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety and
>
> OK, you say "traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety"
>
> > everything to do with allowing cars to drive faster than they would
> > otherwise be able to do in a situation where there might be contention
for
> > right of way. Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
> > happen,
>
> OK, you say "Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
> happen,"
>
> as we all know from either personal experience or reading the
> > paper. Ditto for 4-way stops, although these are considerably less
likely
> > to result in fatalities than traffic lights.
>
> OK, you say "... 4-way stops,ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
> happen"
>
> >Did anyone else notice that
> > Deborah Prokoff got killed at 44th and Ave G. AFTER THEY ADDED THE
> > "TRAFFIC CALMING" 4-WAY STOP SIGN AT THIS INTERSECTION?
>
> She died following your example, ****head.
>
>
> >
> > This is a perfect example of just how stupid mindlessly following rules
> > actually is. An intersection with absolutely no right of way indications
> > (but with a huge sign indicating this) is probably much safer than ANY
> > alternative (save for something like a roundabout or traffic circle).
> > Why? Because everyone has to pay attention to what they are doing and
> > even though someone might space out or be drunk or ignore the sign, you
> > can bet that in almost all cases, at least one of 2 contending parties
is
> > doing just that. Accident prevention. Before, users of the 44th and Ave.
> > G intersection had to be more careful, since one side clearly had the
> > right of way. Adding a 4-way stop was almost certainly directly
> > responsible for the death of a bicyclist.
>
> OK, you say death is caused by stop signs.
>
> >
> > This is why I'm firmly convinced that Fred Meredith, John Forrester, and
> > all the other "effective cycling" advocates are actually secretly
OPPOSED
> > to increasing the number of bicyclists on the road. Their half-baked
> > preaching is directly responsible for increasing the number of bicycling
> > fatalities
>
> So, Fred Meredith, John Forrester, and all the other "effective cycling"
> advocates are responsible for the Death of Ben Clough, Deborah Prokoff,
and
> others. Seems like YOU are responsible, and cannot accept what you have
> caused.
>
> (lots of examples right here in Austin - Ben Clough, Deborah
> > Prokoff, etc. - check MBJ's web page). The more bicycle fatalities there
> > are, the more people are afraid to ride bikes because it's not safe.
>
> But, How can running stopsigns and red lights as you say to do, be safer?
>
> >The result: fewer bicyclists on the road. This is what these losers want:
> > They want to feel special, and every additional commuter bicyclist makes
> > them less so, so best to try to reduce the numbers of those pesky
hangers
> > on (like me, for example), who ride bikes around without making a big
deal
> > out of it. One way to do this is feeding them nonsense (always
mindlessly
> > follow traffic rules being the primary example) which is GOING TO GET
THEM
> > KILLED.
> >
>
> Do you have these feelings of paranoia often?
>
>
> > Pardon me if I don't have any respect for this attitude, in part because
> > it directly and negatively affects my own safety. The fact that honest
> > bicyclists get killed by listening to these idiots is kind of sad,
>
> So, it is better for us to listen to you and run stopsigns, and red
lights.
>
> >but it's also part of that evolutionary march towards better genes, hence
> > can't really be avoided.
>
> OK, are you saying that you don't care about others that get whacked, its
> just the natural selection thing?
>
> >They should have been reading MBJ's bicycle
> > safety tips instead - they'd probably still be alive right now. And THAT
> > is the true irony of this whole ridiculous thread.
>
> So "MBJ" says run stopsigns and redlights, and agrees with you?
>
> ######## In Summery Folks!! ########################
> OK, you will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs, but won't
> Cars will hit you and run you over?
> So, you usually run red lights.
> So, if every bicycle rider ran stopsigns and red lights as you say, Austin
> WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW.
> OK, you say "traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety"
> OK, you say "Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
> happen,"
> OK, you say "... 4-way stops,ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
> happen"
> She died following your example, ****head.
> OK, you say death is caused by stop signs.
> So, you are responsible for the death of Ben Clough, Deborah Prokoff, and
> cannot accept what you have caused.
> But, How can running stopsigns and red lights as you say to do, be safer?
> Do you have these feelings of paranoia often?
> So, it is better for us to listen to you and run stopsigns, and red
lights.
> OK, are you saying that you don't care about others that get whacked, its
> just the natural selection thing?
> So "MBJ" says run stopsigns and redlights, and agrees with you?
>
> This guy is definitely out to lunch, and working for the City of Austin!??
>
> another post says he is :
>
> Patrick Goetz
> City of Austin Urban Transportation Committee Member
>
>

[rick++]

If you hurry, you get that engraved on your tombstone
before you'll need to use it.

[alan]

Won't it be nice to have the children back in school and too busy to waste
time trolling in Usenet?

--

alan

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."


"Tom_Servo" > wrote in message
...
>
> ######## In Summery Folks!! ########################
> OK, you will treat red lights and stop signs like yield signs, but won't
> Cars will hit you and run you over?
> So, you usually run red lights.
> So, if every bicycle rider ran stopsigns and red lights as you say, Austin
> WOULD BE MUCH SAFER THAN IT IS NOW.
> OK, you say "traffic lights have NOTHING whatsoever to do with safety"
> OK, you say "Traffic lights ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
> happen,"
> OK, you say "... 4-way stops,ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; an accident waiting to
> happen"
> She died following your example, ****head.
> OK, you say death is caused by stop signs.
> So, you are responsible for the death of Ben Clough, Deborah Prokoff, and
> cannot accept what you have caused.
> But, How can running stopsigns and red lights as you say to do, be safer?
> Do you have these feelings of paranoia often?
> So, it is better for us to listen to you and run stopsigns, and red
lights.
> OK, are you saying that you don't care about others that get whacked, its
> just the natural selection thing?
> So "MBJ" says run stopsigns and redlights, and agrees with you?
>
> This guy is definitely out to lunch, and working for the City of Austin!??

[Russ Frank]

Moron

"Patrick Goetz" > wrote in message

[Peter]

Unbelievable that people would advocate those types of tactics with
the goal in mind of improving how bicyclists are treated! It would
really have the exact opposite effect!

Critical Mass must be a skunk-works project funded by anti-cycling
forces... maybe GM's Hummer Division. Gotta tear up the bike lanes to
make more room for the Hummerz, right?


Peter (I ride my bicycle to work in... Houston! {shudder})


"Truth dude" > wrote in message >...
> "MBJ" must be "Micheal Blue Jay" former Critical Ass in Austin. And Patric
> Goetz is now Leader of Critical Ass in Austin, figures. Two adolescent
> "**** you" joyriders. Guess your tight with "Tym" (thats such a cutesie doo
> name, joy!)
> Too much riding in the sun has cooked their noodles, now rabid, insane
> logic.
>
> ****ing morons - The worst thing that could happen to bicycling safety.
>
> Seriously, you need to get out, get off this scene before you cause the
> deaths of even more innocent trusting people.